• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
But would be useless as evidence since the stain cannot be dated.
Hi Fulcanelli,
Let's see, there's a brutal murder with sexual contact, a possible semen stain that has not been tested near the dead woman's genitalia, a witness, Miss Allesandra Formica, who came forward on her own to say in court that she saw someone that night near the the murder scene who was not Rudy Guede, and there are something like 13 unattributed fingerprints that were found in the apartment after the murder of Miss Kercher.

And you do not want the court to test the possible semen stain?

What if it isn't Rudy Guede's? It could maybe free him. What if it is indeed someone else's DNA in the stain, the DNA is traceable and it matches 1 of those unattributed fingerprints found? What if that person is then IDed and Miss Formica states that THAT person is whom she saw that night of the murder?

I find it very hard to believe that you seem to not give a heck about getting the stain tested!

You're not afraid of the truth being something that you have argued against for so many, many months, are you? I hope that you would keep and open mind and not be worried about saving face if you, and the Court, were wrong about Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's involvement in the murder of Miss Kercher.
Just wondering in Los Angeles...
RWVBWL
 
What is the worst case scenario for the prosecution? Maybe DNA from an unidentified male that is not Raffaele or Rudy (or the boyfriend)? That would fit with the scenario that Rudy had an accomplice (that was not Raffaele or Amanda).

The prosecution's worst-case scenario is that the stain is in fact semen left by Guede, because it becomes even harder to come up with a scenario in which the other two played a significant role, with two knives, staging, bare footprints in the corridor, and other improbable elements.

Can you think of a legitimate reason why a public institution devoted to the interests of truth and justice would block this test?
 
Notes re the stain on the pillow:

It would, presumably, be possible to approximately date the stain (semen or otherwise) on Meredith's pillow - but only if the pillow had a pillowcase over it and if it was the pillowcase that the stain was on. My following argument is based on the assumption that the pillow DID have a pillowcase on it - so if anyone knows otherwise, then my argument becomes fairly null (and in that case I would apologise in advance for wasting everyone's time!).

It might have been possible (in November/December 2007, at least) to establish the following things: a) that the pillow was from Meredith's room; b) that it was used regularly by Meredith as bedding; c) that the pillowcase was either Meredith's own or was provided for her use, and; d) the frequency that Meredith washed her bedding (even perhaps, via flatmate testimony, the actual last time that Meredith changed her bedding).

If all those things could have been established, then the date of the stain on the pillow could have been narrowed down. For example, a wild guess would suggest that Meredith might have changed her bedding once every two weeks at a bare minimum - so a worst-case scenario (that she was on the verge of changing her bedding on 1st November) might suggest that the stain was a maximum of two weeks old.

Then, if the stain HAD tested positive for semen, and a DNA profile could have been extracted, investigators might be able to conclude that whoever had deposited that semen had done so within the previous two weeks. If the semen DNA was identified as Meredith's new boyfriend's, it would obviously be of no evidential value. If it was identified as Raffaele's or Rudy's, this would be powerful evidence against either of them respectively. And if it was identified as belonging to some other male, police would have had to try to discover whether Meredith had had consensual sexual relations with any other men in the two weeks before she died (unlikely, I'd suggest), or - barring that - there was another male involved in the sex/murder crime.

Obviously, all of this is total supposition. The stain might have been Meredith's saliva, food residue, hair product - many things, I'm guessing (although the scene-of-crime investigators seemed to be confident that it WAS semen). I also understand that there was an issue of damaging the other evidence on the pillow, if the "semen" stain had been swabbed for analysis.

Nonetheless, I can't help thinking that the police overlooked a potentially very useful piece of evidence here. It MIGHT have been useless (e.g. if the stain was semen from Meredith's boyfriend). But it MIGHT have provided important clues as to who committed the crime. The point is: the police could not tell, on 2nd November 2007, which of these two possibilities was the more likely. So they should have tested the stain to find out.

One last thing: I think that any testing done now (even if it could be done now) would be of slightly less evidential value. This is because I imagine it would be harder to establish a date range for the stain after so much time has elapsed (by this, I mean that the other girls in the flat would probably have forgotten anything they might ever have known about Meredith's laundry habits). But I'd argue that if the stain came back positive for semen, and that semen matched Raffaele, then this would be very damaging for him. I appreciate that some think Raffaele's defence team is playing a very sophisticated game in requesting testing at the 11th hour, but I'd be more inclined to put that down to defence apathy and/or incompetence. After all, playing that game would be an INCREDIBLY high-risk strategy, if Raffaele's defence team actually thought there was a real possibility of his semen DNA being on the pillow.

Of course, if the stain turned out to be Guede's semen DNA, then this would be further evidence against him (but I'd argue that it wouldn't really change things for AK or RS). However, if the stain were found to be semen from someone other than RS or RG, then things might get very interesting......
 
The prosecution's worst-case scenario is that the stain is in fact semen left by Guede, because it becomes even harder to come up with a scenario in which the other two played a significant role, with two knives, staging, bare footprints in the corridor, and other improbable elements.

Can you think of a legitimate reason why a public institution devoted to the interests of truth and justice would block this test?

I'm not sure (as I argued in another post just now) that any discovery of Guede's semen DNA on the pillow would help AK or RS in any way. After all, the prosecution could (and would, in my view) continue to argue that it was a group killing, and that Guede alone provided the active sexual elements. Evidence of his ejaculation would not really diminish the prosecution's theory, I reckon. It would just make Guede's role in the three-way crime even more extreme.....

But, in answer to the question you pose at the end, I too cannot think of a legitimate reason why this stain was not tested as a matter of course (save for some minor points about contamination of other evidence on the pillow). I have read that the police/prosecution seemed quickly to come to the (unsupported) conclusion that the semen must have belonged to Meredith's new boyfriend. If this is true, then it's a dreadful lapse of judgement and reasoning from the police, in my view.
 
Last edited:
How on earth did the investigators miss it? Are you trying to make them look bad? It's not the defense's job to build a case against themselves jester! Whether they found it, tested it or not, doesn't excuse the incompetence of the investigators who should have been doing their jobs without having their hands held in the first place.

It's the defence's job to build their own case for innocence and investigate their own findings is it not?
 
Hi Fulcanelli,
Let's see, there's a brutal murder with sexual contact, a possible semen stain that has not been tested near the dead woman's genitalia, a witness, Miss Allesandra Formica, who came forward on her own to say in court that she saw someone that night near the the murder scene who was not Rudy Guede, and there are something like 13 unattributed fingerprints that were found in the apartment after the murder of Miss Kercher.

And you do not want the court to test the possible semen stain?

What if it isn't Rudy Guede's? It could maybe free him. What if it is indeed someone else's DNA in the stain, the DNA is traceable and it matches 1 of those unattributed fingerprints found? What if that person is then IDed and Miss Formica states that THAT person is whom she saw that night of the murder?

I find it very hard to believe that you seem to not give a heck about getting the stain tested!

You're not afraid of the truth being something that you have argued against for so many, many months, are you? I hope that you would keep and open mind and not be worried about saving face if you, and the Court, were wrong about Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's involvement in the murder of Miss Kercher.
Just wondering in Los Angeles...
RWVBWL

How could it free Rudy even if it was semen, did belong to someone else and could be shown to have been deposited on the night of the murder (which it cannot)? It doesn't exculpate Rudy or the others, it wouldn't make the evidence against them go away. They were convicted as being part of a group crime. The most the stain could do is simply add yet another individual to the group, but it can't anyway, since it can't be dated.
 
The prosecution's worst-case scenario is that the stain is in fact semen left by Guede, because it becomes even harder to come up with a scenario in which the other two played a significant role, with two knives, staging, bare footprints in the corridor, and other improbable elements.

Can you think of a legitimate reason why a public institution devoted to the interests of truth and justice would block this test?

Why? Rudy's epitheal cells were found in Meredith's private areas, which makes Raffaele and Amanda no less guilty. Why would finding his semen in the room be any different?

And it didn't block any test. The defence could have tested it themselves. They didn't, because they didn't want it to be tested.
 
Last edited:
It's the defence's job to build their own case for innocence and investigate their own findings is it not?

Not really: though one would expect that if they went so far as to find potential evidence the police had missed they would have taken the next step and had that evidence tested. I do not know the sequence of events regarding this stain. Was it found by Vinci as the alleged dna from amanda on the bra clasp was? What did the defence say about it at the trial?
 
Why? Rudy's epitheal cells were found in Meredith's private areas, which makes Raffaele and Amanda no less guilty. Why would finding his semen in the room be any different?

And it didn't block any test. The defence could have tested it themselves. They didn't, because they didn't want it to be tested.

Excuses.
 
How could it free Rudy even if it was semen, did belong to someone else and could be shown to have been deposited on the night of the murder (which it cannot)? It doesn't exculpate Rudy or the others, it wouldn't make the evidence against them go away. They were convicted as being part of a group crime. The most the stain could do is simply add yet another individual to the group, but it can't anyway, since it can't be dated.

Excuses.
 
Actually, I'd say so far you're the only one who's come to that conclusion, at least openly. But why don't you enlighten us. Former lives? If you have reason to believe Dr. Glider is being dishonest with his credentials then don't beat around the bush here. Just come out with it.

Ummm. I believe Dr."Glider" prefers to spell his name "Gilder."

And I never questioned his "credentials." I was raising an eyebrow over his self-described specialties.......all those diverse specialties after earning his Ph.D. a mere three years ago. Or is he being modest and hasn't mentioned the doctoral degrees he earned in those fields too?

"Jason Gilder’s Specialties:
Forensic DNA profiling, population genetics, computerized automation, evolutionary computation, neural networks, expert systems, graphics, and pattern recognition techniques."

///
 
Notes re the stain on the pillow:

It would, presumably, be possible to approximately date the stain (semen or otherwise) on Meredith's pillow - but only if the pillow had a pillowcase over it and if it was the pillowcase that the stain was on. My following argument is based on the assumption that the pillow DID have a pillowcase on it - so if anyone knows otherwise, then my argument becomes fairly null (and in that case I would apologise in advance for wasting everyone's time!).

It might have been possible (in November/December 2007, at least) to establish the following things: a) that the pillow was from Meredith's room; b) that it was used regularly by Meredith as bedding; c) that the pillowcase was either Meredith's own or was provided for her use, and; d) the frequency that Meredith washed her bedding (even perhaps, via flatmate testimony, the actual last time that Meredith changed her bedding).

If all those things could have been established, then the date of the stain on the pillow could have been narrowed down. For example, a wild guess would suggest that Meredith might have changed her bedding once every two weeks at a bare minimum - so a worst-case scenario (that she was on the verge of changing her bedding on 1st November) might suggest that the stain was a maximum of two weeks old.

Then, if the stain HAD tested positive for semen, and a DNA profile could have been extracted, investigators might be able to conclude that whoever had deposited that semen had done so within the previous two weeks. If the semen DNA was identified as Meredith's new boyfriend's, it would obviously be of no evidential value. If it was identified as Raffaele's or Rudy's, this would be powerful evidence against either of them respectively. And if it was identified as belonging to some other male, police would have had to try to discover whether Meredith had had consensual sexual relations with any other men in the two weeks before she died (unlikely, I'd suggest), or - barring that - there was another male involved in the sex/murder crime.

Obviously, all of this is total supposition. The stain might have been Meredith's saliva, food residue, hair product - many things, I'm guessing (although the scene-of-crime investigators seemed to be confident that it WAS semen). I also understand that there was an issue of damaging the other evidence on the pillow, if the "semen" stain had been swabbed for analysis.

Nonetheless, I can't help thinking that the police overlooked a potentially very useful piece of evidence here. It MIGHT have been useless (e.g. if the stain was semen from Meredith's boyfriend). But it MIGHT have provided important clues as to who committed the crime. The point is: the police could not tell, on 2nd November 2007, which of these two possibilities was the more likely. So they should have tested the stain to find out.

One last thing: I think that any testing done now (even if it could be done now) would be of slightly less evidential value. This is because I imagine it would be harder to establish a date range for the stain after so much time has elapsed (by this, I mean that the other girls in the flat would probably have forgotten anything they might ever have known about Meredith's laundry habits). But I'd argue that if the stain came back positive for semen, and that semen matched Raffaele, then this would be very damaging for him. I appreciate that some think Raffaele's defence team is playing a very sophisticated game in requesting testing at the 11th hour, but I'd be more inclined to put that down to defence apathy and/or incompetence. After all, playing that game would be an INCREDIBLY high-risk strategy, if Raffaele's defence team actually thought there was a real possibility of his semen DNA being on the pillow.

Of course, if the stain turned out to be Guede's semen DNA, then this would be further evidence against him (but I'd argue that it wouldn't really change things for AK or RS). However, if the stain were found to be semen from someone other than RS or RG, then things might get very interesting......
Hi LondonJohn,
I am not sure if you have seen the photo's that are on Perugia Shock of the possible semen stain,
so here is a link:

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009_10_01_archive.html

The photographs are about 1/2 of the page down.
Have a good one,
RWVBWL
 
Last edited:
"Jason Gilder’s Specialties:
Forensic DNA profiling, population genetics, computerized automation, evolutionary computation, neural networks, expert systems, graphics, and pattern recognition techniques."
Wow. For a guy who earned his Ph.D just three years ago he sure has a lot of specialties in very diverse fields. Or did he become expert in all those fields during his former lives? One thing we can all conclude.........in his present life he doesn't suffer from low self-esteem.

///

I do not know if this is relevant but you are aware that this is from a puff piece for the company? I believe it is not unheard of for companies to sort of "spin" their descriptions of themselves and their personnel when they are building a customer base. It is marketing, IMO
 
must be missing something


HB,

If the item in question is in the possession of the authorities, could the defense test it? I don't see how.

Also, I find the idea that the stain was due to previous, consensual sex to be questionable. Would Meredith not have laundered the item in question?
 
Not really: though one would expect that if they went so far as to find potential evidence the police had missed they would have taken the next step and had that evidence tested. I do not know the sequence of events regarding this stain. Was it found by Vinci as the alleged dna from amanda on the bra clasp was? What did the defence say about it at the trial?

My first question would be, before asking about the defense: Why would the original investigators not be able to find a possible semen stain? Why did it take a defense expert to find it in the first place?
 
I have no idea, Humanity Blues. Just as I have no idea how Vinci identified Knox's dna on the bra clasp. That is why I asked about the sequence of events with respect to this stain
 
HB,

If the item in question is in the possession of the authorities, could the defense test it? I don't see how.

Also, I find the idea that the stain was due to previous, consensual sex to be questionable. Would Meredith not have laundered the item in question?

If it was Rudy's we would certainly learn more about the crime, and I am still failing to see how the investigators would miss a stain on a pillow that could possibly be semen. That looks pretty bad on its face, and while some people are cleverly trying to be "nuanced", it looks more like excuses. We can talk about defense strategy all day, but it's not like the investigators or the prosecution were precluded from testing it after it was discovered. What was the big barricade that stopped them from discovering it in the first place?
 
Last edited:
LinkedIn profile

I do not know if this is relevant but you are aware that this is from a puff piece for the company? I believe it is not unheard of for companies to sort of "spin" their descriptions of themselves and their personnel when they are building a customer base. It is marketing, IMO

http://www.linkedin.com/in/jasongilder
The material you quoted comes from his LinkedIn profile, not the company website. BTW, population genetics, which is listed under his interests, is one of the multiple disciplines needed for DNA profiling.
 
Desperate? They didn't even test for semen. Where's the desperation? The writing is on the wall. You don't even need to take two steps to find faults with the ILE. It reeks of incompetence. Reeks. Moreover, they should be happy to test it as according to the court jester, they have nothing to lose anyways.

The defense shouldn't have to even request it anyways. They should've tested in the first place if it was an objective and thorough investigation. I realize little court jesters are going to defend every misstep of the investigation, but that's fine. It's very obvious why they do it.

How do you know what ILE should have tested and what they shouldn't have tested? I see a lot of armchair amateurs shrieking 'incompetence' and 'fabrication' without any access to the primary documentation, any of the forensic analyses, or indeed of any procedures employed during a murder investigation.

You can't just post something on the internet, label it suspicious, and conclude that the investigators were incompetent. If the investigation was so incompetent, then why did a team of some of the highest-paid lawyers in Italy fail to convince the court?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom